I'm curious; Do any of you guys ever seriously consider giving up watching NHL hockey?

Everytime I watch things like this (a joke fine for what is essentially an assault and deserved a multi-game suspension) I think about it.

Last nite I was catching some of the other playoff series. Particularly the Boston/Washington game. There were 5 or 6 penalties by Bruins players throughout the OT. The announcers even tongue-in-cheek laughed about the glaring penalties "not being penalties" *guffaw* at this time of the game. As if it is entirely the norm, nay quite acceptable, that game circumstances and time of game can affect if a penalty is a penalty. That this line of thinking is just the "NHL way", and we all accept it. This mindset permeates every level of the machine, from players, to coaches, to management, to announcers, to commentators, to writers.

At one point in that game, a Bruin runs over the Caps goalie (some young guy call up) when he clearly could have avoided him. The ref stands there and looks right at it, NO CALL. Then a scrum breaks out. So the ref tosses a guy from each team in the box. A scrum that wouldn't have occurred if the ref would have made the original call mind you. So the very next possession, a Bruin comes rambling into the goal crease again "chasing a puck" the Caps goalie snapped up well before he (the Bruin) gets there....... so the Caps goalie puts his stick and glove up for the Bruin to run face-first into it. What does the ref do? Call the Caps goalie for a penalty. Sending him the message that if he thinks he's going to defend himself since the refs wont (rookie treatment, again totally normal mindset).... he thought wrong.

/shakes head. If I didn't want to watch the Pens so bad, I think I would just turn the NHL off and never go back.

penmyst wrote:I'm curious; Do any of you guys ever seriously consider giving up watching NHL hockey?

This exact thought came to me the other day. If this wasn't such a great sport and I wasn't so invested, I wouldn't watch. Just a few years ago, this game was great (right after the lockout). Penalties called. Fast pace. Fun to watch again.

Really? I mean, when I saw it live I grimaced at the attempted punch, but when I saw he missed that, it was meh after that. I mean, you can't really hurt someone like that. I'm glad the league didn't alter the way the series would flow. I could live with a one-game suspension, but I think the "injury risk" is really over blown.

Regardless of what's physically possible to "achieve" wich such a move it's a dick move and his intention is so very ugly. Letting that slip by so easily is horrible.

I can't believe anyone would argue that doesn't at LEAST deserve one game if not more. It doesn't matter if Zetterberg was hurt or not. You don't punish for the result you punish for the action. The NHL always gets this backwards for some reason.

That was a clear attempt to injure by Weber, there is no way you can argue otherwise. That was a WWF style turnbuckle head smash into the glass. Again, doesn't matter if Zetterberg was hurt or not, that kind of garbage has no place in the game. You let stuff like that go and players are going to try and take it one step further next time. Clear intent to injure and no place in the game.

Really? I mean, when I saw it live I grimaced at the attempted punch, but when I saw he missed that, it was meh after that. I mean, you can't really hurt someone like that. I'm glad the league didn't alter the way the series would flow. I could live with a one-game suspension, but I think the "injury risk" is really over blown.

Injury risk is overblown? You can't hurt someone slamming their face into the glass?

penmyst wrote:Is this the NHL or the WWE? That was a pretty good turnbuckle slam.

I'm curious; Do any of you guys ever seriously consider giving up watching NHL hockey?

Everytime I watch things like this (a joke fine for what is essentially an assault and deserved a multi-game suspension) I think about it.

Last nite I was catching some of the other playoff series. Particularly the Boston/Washington game. There were 5 or 6 penalties by Bruins players throughout the OT. The announcers even tongue-in-cheek laughed about the glaring penalties "not being penalties" *guffaw* at this time of the game. As if it is entirely the norm, nay quite acceptable, that game circumstances and time of game can affect if a penalty is a penalty. That this line of thinking is just the "NHL way", and we all accept it. This mindset permeates every level of the machine, from players, to coaches, to management, to announcers, to commentators, to writers.

At one point in that game, a Bruin runs over the Caps goalie (some young guy call up) when he clearly could have avoided him. The ref stands there and looks right at it, NO CALL. Then a scrum breaks out. So the ref tosses a guy from each team in the box. A scrum that wouldn't have occurred if the ref would have made the original call mind you. So the very next possession, a Bruin comes rambling into the goal crease again "chasing a puck" the Caps goalie snapped up well before he (the Bruin) gets there....... so the Caps goalie puts his stick and glove up for the Bruin to run face-first into it. What does the ref do? Call the Caps goalie for a penalty. Sending him the message that if he thinks he's going to defend himself since the refs wont (rookie treatment, again totally normal mindset).... he thought wrong.

/shakes head. If I didn't want to watch the Pens so bad, I think I would just turn the NHL off and never go back.

I have said it time and time again -- we WANT referees to officiate to game circumstances. It is a good thing. It would really stink if they started calling tic-tak holdings with 40 seconds to go in regulation. They have to temper it a bit, but the "a-hold-in-the-first-is-a-hold-in-the-third" line of reasoning would make the game worse.

I'm curious; Do any of you guys ever seriously consider giving up watching NHL hockey?

Everytime I watch things like this (a joke fine for what is essentially an assault and deserved a multi-game suspension) I think about it.

Last nite I was catching some of the other playoff series. Particularly the Boston/Washington game. There were 5 or 6 penalties by Bruins players throughout the OT. The announcers even tongue-in-cheek laughed about the glaring penalties "not being penalties" *guffaw* at this time of the game. As if it is entirely the norm, nay quite acceptable, that game circumstances and time of game can affect if a penalty is a penalty. That this line of thinking is just the "NHL way", and we all accept it. This mindset permeates every level of the machine, from players, to coaches, to management, to announcers, to commentators, to writers.

At one point in that game, a Bruin runs over the Caps goalie (some young guy call up) when he clearly could have avoided him. The ref stands there and looks right at it, NO CALL. Then a scrum breaks out. So the ref tosses a guy from each team in the box. A scrum that wouldn't have occurred if the ref would have made the original call mind you. So the very next possession, a Bruin comes rambling into the goal crease again "chasing a puck" the Caps goalie snapped up well before he (the Bruin) gets there....... so the Caps goalie puts his stick and glove up for the Bruin to run face-first into it. What does the ref do? Call the Caps goalie for a penalty. Sending him the message that if he thinks he's going to defend himself since the refs wont (rookie treatment, again totally normal mindset).... he thought wrong.

/shakes head. If I didn't want to watch the Pens so bad, I think I would just turn the NHL off and never go back

Good post. This is what I was trying to get out in my earlier post. Sometimes I do feel like not watching anymore. I love hockey the sport, not hockey the spectacle. I understand that it is a physical full contact game (which is one of the reason I love the game), but the fights after every clean check, the random cheapshots, guys trying to hurt other guys... somewhere the sport itself is being lost. The game looks nothing like it did when I started watching.

I hate the NHL way. Other sports rules seem so much more concrete and more defined. In the NHL the rules change by the situation at the time. Everytime I read Kerry Fraser's column at TSN I shake my head.

TheHammer24 wrote:I have said it time and time again -- we WANT referees to officiate to game circumstances. It is a good thing. It would really stink if they started calling tic-tak holdings with 40 seconds to go in regulation. They have to temper it a bit, but the "a-hold-in-the-first-is-a-hold-in-the-third" line of reasoning would make the game worse.

No we do not want this, at least I don't.

Edit: You know looking at this again... what you say is really what gets me steamed at the NHL. If a rule is differrent in the first as compared to the third, then something is seriously wrong. How can people like a sport where a rule changes based on what period it is? My games at my local rink, a hook in the first is the same in the third. There's no problem there. It's fun and people know what is a penalty and what isn't and most guys can generally play within the rules. Why can't professionals? I guess I just don't see where it would make the game worse. I think make up calls, letting stuff go, and not suspending players that obviously crossed a line make the game worse.

Last edited by bh on Fri Apr 13, 2012 12:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.

penmyst wrote:I'm curious; Do any of you guys ever seriously consider giving up watching NHL hockey?

Not as long as Penguins have guys like Crosby and Malkin. If they were on the bottom and had no good future in sight, I probably wouldn't be as interested. But this is exciting time for the Penguins' franchise.

TheHammer24 wrote:I have said it time and time again -- we WANT referees to officiate to game circumstances. It is a good thing. It would really stink if they started calling tic-tak holdings with 40 seconds to go in regulation. They have to temper it a bit, but the "a-hold-in-the-first-is-a-hold-in-the-third" line of reasoning would make the game worse.

No we do not want this, at least I don't.

I've gotten into this debate with several other posters, and is reflected in Penny's post that you just quoted:

As if it is entirely the norm, nay quite acceptable, that game circumstances and time of game can affect if a penalty is a penalty.

The worst was when people were up in arms that Cooke got thrown in the box in one scrum earlier this season--the reason being, that the refs had accidentally put two of the opponent's players in the box, so they needed to make it 5-4 instead of 5-3. This was the right outcome, I argued, because the scrum didn't warrant a huge two-minute two-man advantage for the Penguins. The refs should have just put one of the opponents in the box, but putting cooke in there too solved the problem.

The response was outrageous, "IF the RULES SAY it's a penalty it's a penalty!!!" Strict adherence to the rule book would be mind numbingly painful. I said that every scrum would result in every play getting throw out other than the original two combatants under the third-man in rule. Every time a player drops his glove to grab another player's shoulder pads to avoid him fighting someone else, would be an unsportsmanlike conduct penalty. To draw an analogy, reading the rule book literally would be like a copy pulling you over every time you are 1 MPH over the speed limit or fail to signal. Like cops, we need officials to use their discretion. Hockey is a much more difficult game to officiate than other sports save for maybe soccer. Basketball has as many judgment calls, but fouls are so numerous they don't affect the game like a PP does. Referees are part of the game, period, and they do their best. As someone who was an official, it is VERY HARD to do. There are so many influences going on--players yapping, coaches yapping, crowd booing, etc. Add to that, that there are 3-4 penalties that I COULD call but don't in a five minute span, if I call one that I should have or let one go that I should not have, you guys are crucifying me. No one notices when the refs do a good job, never.

A referee's goal is to minimize his impact on the game, and let the players decide the outcome. This role requires not letting the game out of hand, but letting the player dictate the 5-on-5 pace. It requires ensuring no one gets hurt, but not becoming noticeable in the process. And it really requires letting more go as the game continues. Consistency is the key -- not with respect to the time on the clock, but with respect to the two teams. If you're calling it consistent and within the realm of fairness, you're doing a good job.

TheHammer24 wrote:I have said it time and time again -- we WANT referees to officiate to game circumstances. It is a good thing. It would really stink if they started calling tic-tak holdings with 40 seconds to go in regulation. They have to temper it a bit, but the "a-hold-in-the-first-is-a-hold-in-the-third" line of reasoning would make the game worse.

You don't speak for me on this. A penalty in the 1st is a penalty in the last 30 seconds of regulation and should be called as such. Just because a team has 5 power plays, doesn't mean you make up imaginary penalties to give the other team power plays. Just because a team just had a power play, doesn't mean they shouldn't go right back on the power play if the other team commits a penalty.

I agree with the latter two (make up calls), but I strongly disagree with the first. You are greatly underestimating the lack of objectiveness in hockey penalties and greatly inviting officials to determine the outcome of the game. Supporters of this method would invariably complaint that officials are controlling the outcome of the game as soon as their progressive idea was implemented. Trust me on this one.

TheHammer24 wrote:I have said it time and time again -- we WANT referees to officiate to game circumstances. It is a good thing. It would really stink if they started calling tic-tak holdings with 40 seconds to go in regulation. They have to temper it a bit, but the "a-hold-in-the-first-is-a-hold-in-the-third" line of reasoning would make the game worse.

It uh, doesn't seem to harm the Olympic and international game.

You do realize that players will adjust? And they'll stop playing with fire engaging in "tic-tak" holdings (for example) so as to not put themselves in the position of being called for a penalty at a crucial juncture of the game? Thereby making the game MORE about skill/effort/execution at crunch-time... and less about who can goon it up more at crunch time.

Just saying.

bh wrote:Good post. This is what I was trying to get out in my earlier post. Sometimes I do feel like not watching anymore. I love hockey the sport, not hockey the spectacle. I understand that it is a physical full contact game (which is one of the reason I love the game), but the fights after every clean check, the random cheapshots, guys trying to hurt other guys... somewhere the sport itself is being lost. The game looks nothing like it did when I started watching.

I hate the NHL way. Other sports rules seem so much more concrete and more defined. In the NHL the rules change by the situation at the time. Everytime I read Kerry Fraser's column at TSN I shake my head.

Garage League.

I forgot about the other assorted nonsense you mention here. But yeah, the fights on clean hits, random thug assaults, lack of respect for seriously injuring other players intentionally, and my personal pet peeve: the requisite scrum after EVERY. SINGLE. PUCK. FREEZE. by a goalie. That last one never happens in the Olympics and International game, since one stick jab at a goalie's glove lands you in the box. So nobody comes in to hit goalies after they freeze a puck, and hence---- no need for the "scrum". This isn't rugby, and it isn't even during the actual play. Entirely unnecessary.

TheHammer24 wrote:I agree with the latter two (make up calls), but I strongly disagree with the first. You are greatly underestimating the lack of objectiveness in hockey penalties and greatly inviting officials to determine the outcome of the game. Supporters of this method would invariably complaint that officials are controlling the outcome of the game as soon as their progressive idea was implemented. Trust me on this one.

I don't blame the ref for "determining the outcome of a game" by calling a penalty.

I blame the guy that committed the penalty.

Maybe that's the difference between our viewpoints.

If you aren't committing penalties, then you don't need to worry about refs inventing calls against you. And if they ARE inventing calls, then they shouldn't be long for their job if the NHL is reviewing/evaluating their performance.

Last edited by penmyst on Fri Apr 13, 2012 2:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.

How is the Olympic game different? It's officiating by the same people. I'll say it again. You're greatly overestimating the degree to which the game can be called "objectively." Simply put, it's not as easy as "it's a penalty." It's not like offsides, and the cricumstances of the game require the referee to close the window of what they call a penalty.

TheHammer24 wrote:How is the Olympic game different? It's officiating by the same people. I'll say it again. You're greatly overestimating the degree to which the game can be called "objectively." Simply put, it's not as easy as "it's a penalty." It's not like offsides, and the cricumstances of the game require the referee to close the window of what they call a penalty.

Thanks for making my point.

It's not the refs that are doing this.

It is the league policy that does it.

I am not arguing that penalties are 100% clear cut. I am also not arguing that I want to see questionable calls run amok.

But most penalties, most, are fairly easy to call.

The NHL policy is to allow referees to swallow their whistles in OT, or to "even things up" by calling a remarkably impossible amount of games where both teams are within 1 or 2 PPs of each other..... I mean it's cosmically impossible for that to happen at the near 95% + rate that it happens in the NHL.

Yet if you'll remember, some Olympic games have severely lopsided PP opportunities. Which is a more realistic reflection of the difference in skill/execution/effort between two disparate teams. Since actual penalties generally occur when a player is out-positioned via skill/effort/system.

So the same guys call both games (NHL and International)... yet one league seems to allow for interpretive penalty calls, and "evening things up"....... while the other doesn't. Seems it's not the refs at all.

Stop reading here. Honestly, this is so beyond false it hurts. I hate playing the "i've been there card," but calling penalties is EXTREMELY hard, particularly with the pressure that comes with being a ref. When you miss a call from your couch, nothing happens. When you miss a call on the ice, you're subjected to a million pressures. You're also wrong that it's "league policy." It's just human error. They've done studies on this in fact, referees call different games when there is no crowd and players aren't allowed to talk to them.

TheHammer24 wrote:I said that every scrum would result in every play[er] getting throw[n] out other than the original two combatants under the third-man in rule.

Good if it did - you'd see no more scrums, which are boring to watch and drag out the games. Watching NHLers playing hockey is entertaining; watching people standing around and shoving each other is not.

TheHammer24 wrote:I said that every scrum would result in every play[er] getting throw[n] out other than the original two combatants under the third-man in rule.

Good if it did - you'd see no more scrums, which are boring to watch and drag out the games. Watching NHLers playing hockey is entertaining; watching people standing around and shoving each other is not.

TheHammer24 wrote:I said that every scrum would result in every play[er] getting throw[n] out other than the original two combatants under the third-man in rule.

Good if it did - you'd see no more scrums, which are boring to watch and drag out the games. Watching NHLers playing hockey is entertaining; watching people standing around and shoving each other is not.